Answering any questions on Evolution

JoeyArnold said:

Why do some people starve themselves?

Click to expand...

I know that in my case, simply reading some of the posts in this forum causes me to lose my appetite. (Or even "lose" what I've already eaten.)

.

selfinflikted said:

I'm fairly certain you are wrong about all of the above. I don't have to "believe" in eating to be hungry. When I am hungry, I eat. No belief required. In the same vein, when I grow too tired, I will sleep. Again, no belief required.

So, I'm still not sure how you are conflating belief and walking, eating, and sleeping.

Click to expand...

Yes, they have provided yet another example of The Equivocation Fallacy. It has become virtually engrained in all sorts of "creation science" and Young Earth Creationist arguments.


.

verysincere said:

Yes, they have provided yet another example of The Equivocation Fallacy. It has become virtually engrained in all sorts of "creation science" and Young Earth Creationist arguments.


.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure what Joey's argument is. It's tough to follow a conversation with him, though, I think he deliberately tries to muddy the waters with non sequiturs.

Originally Posted by verysincere:
Yes, they have provided yet another example of The Equivocation Fallacy. It has become virtually engrained in all sorts of "creation science" and Young Earth Creationist arguments.

selfinflikted said:

Honestly, I'm not sure what Joey's argument is. It's tough to follow a conversation with him, though, I think he deliberately tries to muddy the waters with non sequiturs.

Click to expand...

I think he was trying to use the wide semantic fields of the word "belief" to confuse the issue. And that's why I dubbed it yet another Equivocation Fallacy. (Now if that was NOT his tactic, then I haven't the slightest idea what he was trying to see. Many of the statements in that thread have read like gibberish, perhaps intentionally.)

Perhaps someone here has the Gift of Interpretation?

[But as always, I will emphasize as a Bible-believing Christian myself that these kinds of arguments from my Christian brethren should NOT be confused with the teachings of Jesus nor even the Bible in general. Because of public forum examples like these, much of the general public reaches negative conclusions about Christians based upon the behaviors, pseudo-science, and anti-knowledge views of a small but very vocal minority of self-described believers.]


.

selfinflikted said:

Any number of reasons.

Click to expand...

People choose to not eat sometimes. That's belief.

JoeyArnold said:

People choose to not eat sometimes. That's belief.

Click to expand...

I believe I am quite done with this conversation. When you have something to add other than being extremely annoying, let us know!

selfinflikted said:

I believe I am quite done with this conversation. When you have something to add other than being extremely annoying, let us know!

Click to expand...

I know the feeling. Cuz I believe I am getting a headache.

(And I believe it may due to neuron necrosis caused by excess exposure to an inconducive environment.)

.

SkyWriting said:

What basic force causes life to happen from non living materials?
And for what cosmic purpose?

Click to expand...

SkyWriting said:

Sorry. "Cosmic purpose" was not correct. Why would it happen? How would life benefit matter? For what "big" reason would life occur instead of matter just chemically degrading over time? (All the same question.)

Click to expand...

Perhaps, before you start looking for purpose, you should ask whether there is a purpose.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

What basic force causes life to happen from non living materials?
And for what cosmic purpose?
​

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Sorry. "Cosmic purpose" was not correct. Why would it happen? How would life benefit matter? For what "big" reason would life occur instead of matter just chemically degrading over time? (All the same question.)
​

Naraoia said:

Perhaps, before you start looking for purpose, you should ask whether there is a purpose.

Click to expand...

Amen. As much as I've gotten nauseous at the misuse of the Reification Fallacy by Ken Ham & Co. at Answers in Genesis as they recklessly hurl that charge at their opponents, SkyWriting has indeed provided yet another blatant example.

Skywriting, I could just as easily ask you, "How does gravity benefit the earth by reuniting items with its surface?" Example: A cannonball is shot into the earth. It returns to the surface of the earth from whence it came. Does the earth benefit from hoarding such objects to itself? Does gravity prevent the earth from getting lonely? Believe it or not, the ancients sometimes debated such ideas.

But what surprises me most about these kinds of "Why?" questions is that Christians have traditionally objected by saying, "Who are you to question why God chooses to do as he does? Ultimately we just know that God created the universe as it is for the purposes of his glory." (And you yourself have posted comments along those lines.) So why do you assume that the methodological naturalism of science is somehow required to assign "purpose" (or even WILL) to matter and the laws of physics?

Even so, I'll play along and answer a few of the questions:


"What basic force causes life to happen from non living materials?"

ANSWER: The chemical bonds and other atomic/molecular forces which explain all chemistry.

Those laws of physics explain all sorts of "happenings" including life from non-life. Personally, because I affirm the abiogenesis described in the first book of the Bible, I naturally assume that God created the universe in such a way that life from non-life was an inevitable result (just as gravity exists because God created a universe which produced gravitational forces.)

But a particular scientist's personal beliefs are irrelevant to these facts -- whether or not the scientist happens to be theist or atheist -- because the EVIDENCE tells the same story to everyone. (And the Bible believer finds the same story in the scriptures.) ALL of the evidence supports the reality that biological life came from non-living ingredients, both the evidence from science and the evidence from Genesis. Why? Both theistic scientists and atheistic scientists (and every other kind of scientist) can agree that the physical laws of the universe which describe chemical bonds, valences, electron sharing, etc. cause life to happen.

Now before you get confused by the methodological naturalism of science, consider a rainstorm watering crops. What CAUSES the rain to condense from clouds (using small particulates as the starting point of each drop) and provide water for plant growth? A scientist might explain the causes in meteorological terms (or even some elementary laws of physics) and a theologian might explain the cause by describing God's will for the earth as home to man as the Imago Dei. But the respective PROXIMATE CAUSATIONS and ULTIMATE CAUSATIONS are in no way in conflict----despite the ardent efforts of so many Christians on this forum to create a conflict. They are simply different kinds of answers to slightly different versions of the same question.

By the way, if you've ever seen a scientist (or any other rational person) roll their eyes when some of our Christian brethren resort to pointless "God-did-it" arguments [which provide no useful explanatory information which the scientific method pursues], you should now begin to understand---assuming that you read the previous paragraph.

Therefore, whenever some of my Bible-believing Christian brethren insist on demanding that SCIENTISTS operate and speak like THEOLOGIANS, they betray an ignorance of both Science AND Theology that exasperates me. Science and Theology have different definitions and use different methodologies. And they also address different questions.

And the tiresome baitings pursued by some in an effort to provoke needless, pointless, (and brainless) "wars" between such Christians and the rest of the population is an embarrassing and regrettable reality. And I apologize to the scientists and science-literate individuals on this forum for that sad fact.


Originally Posted by SkyWriting:

How would life benefit matter?
​

ANSWER: Who ever said it did?

(I certainly never did. No competent scientist ever did.)

Originally Posted by SkyWriting:​

For what "big" reason would life occur instead of matter just chemically degrading over time?
​

ANSWER: It's called the SUN. It provides solar energy that powers photosynthesis, the water cycle, and many other processes which allow life to thrive on earth. Check out the Laws of Thermodynamics.


Originally Posted by SkyWriting:

(All the same question.)
​

No, they are NOT the same question. "How would life benefit matter?" is a Reification Fallacy.

The second question is answered by basic physics. But if you are insisting on confusing ULTIMATE CAUSATION (which is the focus of theology) and PROXIMATE CAUSATION (which is a focus of science), then you are barking up the wrong tree. Why are you insistent on addressing a theological question which interests Bible-believing Christians to scientists who are more interested in the PROXIMATE CAUSES?

Personally, as both a publishing scientist and a publishing theologian, I'm interested in both spheres of scholarship. But I don't try to publish my science articles in theological journals and I don't disrespect the time and energy of the editors of science journals by sending them my theological articles. (Michael Behe is NOT my role model.) I understand that Science and Theology are not the same field of study, nor do they share the same methodologies.

Likewise, for we who are Bible-believing Christ followers, God gave us the Bible (God's Book of Scriptures) to answer our questions about theology and God gave us the universe (God's Book of Nature) to answers our questions about his Creation. God placed plenty of evidence in BOTH and we do well to show our respect for God (as the author of BOTH books) for PAYING ATTENTION to that evidence. Sadly, far too many clueless Christians accept the Bible's evidence but deny and ignore (and distort) the evidence which God has placed in the universe for our benefit. As a result, ignorance about Science is common among so many of our Christian brethren. [And that is why I am devoting some of my retirement energy to educating Christians on the Bible.and.Science.Forum.]


.

.

AV1611VET said:

If I didn't know you better, I would think you said that just to get under my skin.

Anyone whose Christian faith depends on 'personal and spiritual experiences,' and not the Bible, is ... well ... I can think of one denomination and one movement that do, but I'm not going to shoot my brothers & sisters in Christ in the foot, just to make a point with you.

As the song goes:

My faith is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name.

On Christ, the Solid Rock, I stand; all other ground is sinking sand.

Click to expand...

What about the song:

Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true

Jerry lee lewis was the devil

Jesus was an architect, previous to his career as a prophet

All of a sudden, I found myself in love with the world

So there was only one thing that I could do

Was ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long

verysincere said:

Yet another example of The Equivocation Fallacy.

Notice how he taps the concept of "limits" --- a foundation of calculus --- and tries to apply its substance and credibility to something totally unrelated: Dembski's "limit". (Of course, Dembski's limit has no credibility in its associated scientific field. Plus, Dembski himself lost any final shreds of personal credibility when he posted his website mocking Dover Trial judge, John Jones, and various "enemy scientists" with fart sounds emanating from their pictures.)

One of the few differences I've noticed between the "creation science" of today versus the Morris & Whitcomb brand of the 1960's, when I was an naive advocate for it, is that the Equivocation Fallacy has become a standard propaganda tactic applied routinely (and recklessly) in an effort to prop up all sorts of nonsense.

(Answers in Genesis has virtually refined the use of the Equivocation Fallacy into a fine art. For example, notice Ken Ham's straight-faced claims that Hitler and the Nazis loved The Theory of Evolution and applied it to justify the Holocaust, simply because Ham can find a German word in MEIN KAMPF that is often translated "evolution" in English. He's happy to utilize the Equivocation Fallacy in that context even though the Nazis placed all of Darwin's books on the banned book list and burned every library copy. Of course, standards of truth and reality are rarely an obstacle for some.)

.

Click to expand...

You sir are a master of the “RED HERRING”. My use of the illustration was not an Equivocation Fallacy but rather a logical equivalent; big difference. You built a classic straw man but cannot address the actual problems of probability.

Your Ad Hominem attack on Dembski is shameless but predictable otherwise you really have no position.

By the way Darwinism is a classic justification for Eugenics. Ideologically that is just what Hitler had in mind.

Guy1 said:

If I'm not mistaken it's due to hydrophobic and hydrophilic elements clustering together in the form of a shell and organizing themselves due to their own properties. This is why water is considered a catalyst in these kinds of reactions.

(Scientists. Feel free to correct me)

Click to expand...

That's weird. You put "Science first" but don't know how
to find such stuff? I highly recommend:

Home - PubMed - NCBI

Zaius137 said:

By the way Darwinism is a classic justification for Eugenics. Ideologically that is just what Hitler had in mind.

Click to expand...

Oh, wait, you're serious?

USincognito said:

Oh, wait, you're serious?

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear the rationale behind that one...

SkyWriting said:

That's weird. You put "Science first" but don't know how
to find such stuff? I highly recommend:

Home - PubMed - NCBI

Click to expand...

I don't much get what your point is here. And you do realize I am fully aware of the existence of pubmed, right?

EDIT: Just to say a little more. I had to use sources from there to write a paper on the efficacy of several generations of oncolytic viruses, their limitations, and their advantages versus current treatments.

Zaius137 said:

Your Ad Hominem attack on Dembski is shameless but predictable otherwise you really have no position.
.

Click to expand...

Now THAT is funny! You think that my mentioning Dembski's ad hominem attack on Judge Jones is an unfair ad hominem attack on Dembski!

(Do you know the meaning of the word "ironic"? I've long wondered if you are a Poe.)

This one is a classic headed for my office door!




.

Zaius137 said:

By the way Darwinism is a classic justification for Eugenics. Ideologically that is just what Hitler had in mind.

Click to expand...

And that probably explains why the Nazis banned all of Darwin's books and burned every copy found in public libraries!

(I seriously doubt that you have any understanding of "Darwinism" or "Eugenics". If you did, you wouldn't confuse the two! Yet another clue that you are a Poe.)


.